[lucideer]

This isn't remotely true. Vibe coding explicitly does not care about whether software works correctly because the fundamental tenet is not needing to understand how the software works (& by extension being unable to verify whether it works correctly).

[davrosthedalek]

That extension doesn't follow. It is possible to verify if software works without knowing how it works internally. This is true with many things. You don't need to know how a plane/car/elevator works to know that it works when you use it.

I would actually argue that only a small percentage of programmers know what happens in code on an instruction level, and near none on a micro-op or register level. Vibe-coding is just one more level of abstraction. The new "code" are the instructions to your LLM.

[tchebb]

> You don't need to know how a plane/car/elevator works to know that it works when you use it.

I'm sure the 737 MAX seemed to work just fine to Boeing's test pilots. Observing the external behavior of a system is not a substitute for understanding its internal workings and the failure modes they carry.

[yomismoaqui]

No, vibe coding is about not reading the generated code but you have to check that it works, be it manually or using tests.

If you do not, why are you vibe coding?

Also there are ways to use a coding agent that are different from this and produce great results, like this:

https://friendlybit.com/python/writing-justhtml-with-coding-...

[resize2996]

"fundamental tenet"? There's not an engineering pope speaking ex cathedra.

[lucideer]

I mean it's new enough to essentially still be a neologism, so you're right - we can give any arbitrary definition to it if we like. I'm just describing my own observations.

[resize2996]

the abstractions around this stuff are still a jenga stack with round pieces... I think it will tighten up over the next year or so for real world use cases. Right now it's great if one is a "build your own tools" kinda person.